Prospect of Invasion of Syria

There does not appear to be an existing thread on the sitaution in Syria, not one that I found anyway, so I thought I'd raise the topic to provoke discussion.

What concerns me is how misrepresented the situation there is by the Western media, and how this may represent a softening up of public opinion in favour of an imperialist invasion.

The war is now effectively a sectarian civil war, not some kind of heroic battle of freedom against tyranny. This was recently and explicitly confirmed by a UN report under former Hague prosecutor Carla del Ponte, which found that no form of military intervention would improve things. Nevertheless, Western media sources continue to paint it as some kind of liberation struggle and argue that we should support the "rebels", when in actual fact the military assistance that has already been coverly given to them has escalated the conflict. They also constantly quote from unreliable anti-government sources such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which consists of a single man who owns a clothes shop in Coventry, and report government attacks on places on the basis of little evidence.

Even long-time dictators will cave in without support (Ceaceascu crumpled like paper as his own army deserted him at the first sign of popular discontent), so it's clear that Assad has a signficant degree of support and therefore that an intervention opposed to him rather than a negotiated settlement aimed at power-sharing would harm rather than help the situation.

The most likely explanation for America's motive is to take out a long-time Soviet and now Russian ally and increase its strength in the Middle East under the guise of "humanitarianism".

My view is that there very certainly was and is a genuine opposition to Assad, in fact more than one kind of civil opposition - but that persistent incursions of "foreign jihadists" and others have engineered the situation into outright war. The US and Britain, as in Libya, clearly intend that friendly faces will be installed in a post Assad transition. The original unarmed civilian opposition, and the first wave of soldiers who defected to them, have repeatedly opposed a military solution, even though they were taking serious casualties themselves.

There has been some involvement by Irish citizens, one of whom recently died.

My view is that there very certainly was and is a genuine opposition to Assad, in fact more than one kind of civil opposition - but that persistent incursions of "foreign jihadists" and others have engineered the situation into outright war. The US and Britain, as in Libya, clearly intend that friendly faces will be installed in a post Assad transition. The original unarmed civilian opposition, and the first wave of soldiers who defected to them, have repeatedly opposed a military solution, even though they were taking serious casualties themselves.

There has been some involvement by Irish citizens, one of whom recently died.

You're absolutely right that there is real opposition. I was more saying that they are not to be found amongst the so-called rebel fighters, as the violent side of the opposition movement has primarily been appropriated by the more violent Islamist or quasi-Islamist types at this stage, owing in a large part to Western assiastance to them.

Yes, if I remember correctly it's the National Co-ordination Committee which has or had more member organisations than any other grouping in Syria, and opposes intervention.

Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria

If there is a foreign intervention, it may well be from an unexpected source. It is clearly the Saudi's and the Gulf States who have been most active in supporting the rebels. And of course this has had a major influence in ensuring that the rebels are now dominated by sectarian Sunni forces. While I don't see the Saudi's invading, they may well use mercenaries or fund other groups to do their work for them - or perhaps the Turks could be persuaded.

But the reality is that the US and Britain and Israel have been content to let the Arab States make the running in Syria. There is simply no benefit to an invasion, it would be massively costly, with an unpredictable out come, and no way of paying for it (i.e. no oil).

Incidentally, I think that by far the best reporting on Syria has come from Patrick Cockburn of the Independent:

Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria

There does not appear to be an existing thread on the sitaution in Syria, not one that I found anyway, so I thought I'd raise the topic to provoke discussion.

What concerns me is how misrepresented the situation there is by the Western media, and how this may represent a softening up of public opinion in favour of an imperialist invasion.

The war is now effectively a sectarian civil war, not some kind of heroic battle of freedom against tyranny. This was recently and explicitly confirmed by a UN report under former Hague prosecutor Carla del Ponte, which found that no form of military intervention would improve things. Nevertheless, Western media sources continue to paint it as some kind of liberation struggle and argue that we should support the "rebels", when in actual fact the military assistance that has already been coverly given to them has escalated the conflict. They also constantly quote from unreliable anti-government sources such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which consists of a single man who owns a clothes shop in Coventry, and report government attacks on places on the basis of little evidence.

Even long-time dictators will cave in without support (Ceaceascu crumpled like paper as his own army deserted him at the first sign of popular discontent), so it's clear that Assad has a signficant degree of support and therefore that an intervention opposed to him rather than a negotiated settlement aimed at power-sharing would harm rather than help the situation.

The most likely explanation for America's motive is to take out a long-time Soviet and now Russian ally and increase its strength in the Middle East under the guise of "humanitarianism".

On 28/08/2012 15:22, Complaints wrote:

Dear Michael,
Thank you for your e.mail and your interest in RTÉ.

Your comments will be included in the Audience Log of calls and e-mails, which is circulated for information to senior RTÉ programme management and is reviewed at the weekly meeting of the Editorial Board.

I have also forwarded your mail to the RTÉ News Editorial team for attention.

I wish to complain about RTE News failure to report on the Civil War in Syria in an impartial manner. Over the last 18 months of the conflict RTE News has daily interviewed representatives of the insurgents (terrorists) and has not once interviewed any representative of the Syrian Government. In effect RTE has become a broadcast arm of the terrorists in Syria which is ironic considering that RTE rigourously enforced Section 31 of The Broadcasting act in Ireland for 30 and refused to broadcast the views of Sinn Fein during that period. RTE was wrong then as is evidenced by recent polls which now show Sinn Fein as the 2nd biggest party in the State........ and RTE is wrong now ..... even Sky News is withdrawing it's support from the terrorists in as it is dawning on them that the terrorists do not represent the views of most Syrians ...... and most Syrians hate them because they kill civilians for propaganda purposes.

Ireland claims to be a neutral country nad RTE has a duty to be impartial and truthful in it's reporting of these matters. RTE actions in this instance brings disgrace to the station and to the country.

Michael O'Flanagan

............

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies.”

Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria

I spoke to the News Room on the phone as well ....... but you have to make your complaints in writing.

About 5 days after I made my complaint ....... RTE stopped reporting on the war in Syria and it didn't get another mention for about 3 weeks. In their next report on Syria they quoted a statement by Asad in full and showed a flattering video of him meeting with a Red Crescent (Red Cross) team.

Todate ... they have stopped interviewing the terrorists in person ......although they still occasionally quote press releases from the "activists."

Last edited by riposte; 29-12-2012 at 08:11 PM.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies.”

Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria

Originally Posted by Ceannaire

Apologies -- I saw that the "Syrian Politics" section was blank.

You're absolutely right that there is real opposition. I was more saying that they are not to be found amongst the so-called rebel fighters, as the violent side of the opposition movement has primarily been appropriated by the more violent Islamist or quasi-Islamist types at this stage, owing in a large part to Western assistance to them.

Yes, if I remember correctly it's the National Co-ordination Committee which has or had more member organisations than any other grouping in Syria, and opposes intervention.

Yes, if I had a slogan for Syria, it would pretty well be to leave it to the Syrians.

There is no chance of them being left though, any more that Africa will be left, to solve things itself.

It is a problem of this era that wherever possible modern Imperialism uses proxies, rather than direct action, and consequently people can't see what is going on.

“ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”— Jean-Paul Sartre

Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria

CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies.”

Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria

Originally Posted by riposte

CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.

But it doesn't say anything about not providing arms and training to "jihadist" bands that find their way across borders.

“ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”— Jean-Paul Sartre

Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria

CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter;

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies.”

Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria

I spoke to the News Room on the phone as well ....... but you have to make your complaints in writing.

About 5 days after I made my complaint ....... RTE stopped reporting on the war in Syria and it didn't get another mention for about 3 weeks. In their next report on Syria they quoted a statement by Asad in full and showed a flattering video of him meeting with a Red Crescent (Red Cross) team.

Todate ... they have stopped interviewing the terrorists in person ......although they still occasionally quote press releases from the "activists."

That's fascinating. It would be remarkable if your complaint had that much impact.

Originally Posted by C. Flower

Yes, if I had a slogan for Syria, it would pretty well be to leave it to the Syrians.

It is a problem of this era that wherever possible modern Imperialism uses proxies, rather than direct action, and consequently people can't see what is going on.

Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria

Originally Posted by Ceannaire

That's fascinating. It would be remarkable if your complaint had that much impact.

It wouldn't have been because I have any influence Ceannaire ....... but having made a well presented case ....... they were forced to examine their policy against their professed impartiallity. RTE have had to subject themselves to a lot of self- scrutiny lately.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies.”